Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other

[dblack]

Speculators didn't buy multiple dwellings with any assumptions they were 'protected' by government. This was clearly a LACK of regulations and oversight by government.

Of course. And in a way I agree with you. The only way government intervention in our economic decisions really works is to go all the way, with a full blown state-run economy.

It's the vague middle ground that's killing us.

You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.

See what happens when someone provides the facts that bripat's beloved Wall Street banksters were the cause of the financial meltdown. THEN, the ONLY conclusion is to run out the polarized argument...the ALL or NONE, black or white...either TOTAL deregulation or TOTAL government control...no moderate position can be accepted.

So, do you think the half-baked regulatory state is working well? You were the one calling for more regulation.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ask yourself the following questions about the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act and/or the role of Fannie & Freddie:

• Did the 1977 legislation, or any other legislation since, require banks to not verify income or payment history of mortgage applicants?

• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?

• What about “No Money Down” Mortgages (0% down payments) ? Were they required by the CRA? Fannie? Freddie?

• Explain the shift in Loan to value from 80% to 120%: What was it in the Act that changed this traditional lending requirement?

• Did any Federal legislation require real estate agents and mortgage writers to use the same corrupt appraisers again and again? How did they manage to always come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?

• Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting (AU) systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?

• How exactly did legislation force Moody’s, S&Ps and Fitch to rate junk paper as Triple AAA?

• What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by Congress to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment — at the same time?

• Internal bank memos showed employees how to cheat the system to get poor mortgages prospects approved that shouldn’t have been: Titled How to Get an “Iffy” loan approved at JPM Chase. (Was circulating that memo also a FNM/FRE/CRA requirement?)

• The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvesment Act ?

• Did the GSEs require banks to not check credit scores? Assets? Income?

• What was it about the CRA or GSEs that mandated fund managers load up on an investment product that was hard to value, thinly traded, and poorly understood

• What was it in the Act that forced banks to make “interest only” loans? Were “Neg Am loans” also part of the legislative requirements also?

• Consider this February 2003 speech by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozlilo at the American Bankers National Real Estate Conference. He advocated zero down payment mortgages — was that a CRA requirement too, or just a grab for more market share, and bad banking?

The answer to all of the above questions is no, none, and nothing at all.

The CRA is not remotely one of the proximate causes of the current credit crunch, Housing collapse,and mortgage debacle.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Speculators didn't buy multiple dwellings with any assumptions they were 'protected' by government. This was clearly a LACK of regulations and oversight by government.

Of course. And in a way I agree with you. The only way government intervention in our economic decisions really works is to go all the way, with a full blown state-run economy.

It's the vague middle ground that's killing us.

You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.

See what happens when someone provides the facts that bripat's beloved Wall Street banksters were the cause of the financial meltdown. THEN, the ONLY conclusion is to run out the polarized argument...the ALL or NONE, black or white...either TOTAL deregulation or TOTAL government control...no moderate position can be accepted.

So, do you think the half-baked regulatory state is working well? You were the one calling for more regulation.

That is the great liberal conceit. All libcommies in all failed countries think they cant hit on a regulatory scheme that will work better than the capitalist regulatory scheme if only given one more chance!

 

[Bfgrn]

Communism is not liberal. It is conservative.

dear, did conservatives spy for Stalin and elect Obama, a guy who voted to left of Bernie Sanders.

Dear, don't you want to debate about Banksters anymore?? Why is Perry Mason trying so hard to change subject?

You are the one who changed the subject you ******* MORON. You are the one who brought up Lenin and conspiracy theories.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. You are the one who brought up Lenin and conspiracy theories.

dear, I brought up inflation with the Keynes quote to show you why no one saw the housing crisis coming; to show you why the Banksters were not stupid as you claimed. I forgot that you know nothing about Econ. so would not understand why I quoted Keynes.

 

[Bfgrn]

Speculators didn't buy multiple dwellings with any assumptions they were 'protected' by government. This was clearly a LACK of regulations and oversight by government.

Of course. And in a way I agree with you. The only way government intervention in our economic decisions really works is to go all the way, with a full blown state-run economy.

It's the vague middle ground that's killing us.

You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.

See what happens when someone provides the facts that bripat's beloved Wall Street banksters were the cause of the financial meltdown. THEN, the ONLY conclusion is to run out the polarized argument...the ALL or NONE, black or white...either TOTAL deregulation or TOTAL government control...no moderate position can be accepted.

So, do you think the half-baked regulatory state is working well? You were the one calling for more regulation.

That is the great liberal conceit. All libcommies in all failed countries think they cant hit on a regulatory scheme that will work better than the capitalist regulatory scheme if only given one more chance!

Speculators didn't buy multiple dwellings with any assumptions they were 'protected' by government. This was clearly a LACK of regulations and oversight by government.

Of course. And in a way I agree with you. The only way government intervention in our economic decisions really works is to go all the way, with a full blown state-run economy.

It's the vague middle ground that's killing us.

You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.

See what happens when someone provides the facts that bripat's beloved Wall Street banksters were the cause of the financial meltdown. THEN, the ONLY conclusion is to run out the polarized argument...the ALL or NONE, black or white...either TOTAL deregulation or TOTAL government control...no moderate position can be accepted.

So, do you think the half-baked regulatory state is working well? You were the one calling for more regulation.

Government lending standards were not the cause of the financial crisis.

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics. [McClatchy, 10/12/08, emphasis added]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

dear, you have learned 16 times now that Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages!! Are you playing stupid for the fun of it? Read "Reckless Endangerment" if you want 400 pages on that exact subject.

 

[Bfgrn]

. You are the one who brought up Lenin and conspiracy theories.

dear, I brought up inflation with the Keynes quote to show you why no one saw the housing crisis coming; to show you why the Banksters were not stupid as you claimed. I forgot that you know nothing about Econ. so would not understand why I quoted Keynes.

WOW, you really ARE a MORON. I never said said banksters were stupid. YOU are the one who tried to blame 'liberals' for leading banksters around by the nose to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain and Romania

 

[Bfgrn]

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

dear, you have learned 16 times now that Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages!! Are you playing stupid for the fun of it? Read "Reckless Endangerment" if you want 400 pages on that exact subject.

All the 'good' mortgages? Is there a finite number pea brain? The TRUTH is speculators WERE NEVER, EVER going to live in the houses they were buying. They were not buying a homestead. They were making a short term investment to make fast money. They CRAVED gimmick loans that had the LEAST initial commitment. Mortgage means a death agreement. They were not signing their lives away. And when those INVESTMENTS went south, they DUMPED them. That is why there was a rupture of the housing market, instead of a slow leak.

 

[Bfgrn]

“Flip This House”: Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble

At the peak of the boom in 2006, over a third of all U.S. home purchase lending was made to people who already owned at least one house. In the four states with the most pronounced housing cycles, the investor share was nearly half—45 percent. Investor shares roughly doubled between 2000 and 2006. While some of these loans went to borrowers with “just” two homes, the increase in percentage terms is largest among those owning three or more properties. In 2006, Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada investors owning three or more properties were responsible for nearly 20 percent of originations, almost triple their share in 2000.

Because investors don’t plan to own properties for long, they care much more about reducing their down-payments than reducing their interest rates. The expansion of the nonprime mortgage market during the 2000s provided the perfect opportunity for optimistic investors to get low-down-payment credit, albeit at high interest rates..., investors were far more likely than owner-occupants to use nonprime credit to make their purchases, especially at the peak. ...

link

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

All the 'good' mortgages? Is there a finite number pea brain? .

dear if there were a finite number of homes there were a finite number of mortgages!! Feel silly?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The TRUTH is speculators WERE NEVER, EVER going to live in the houses they were buying.

too stupid as per usual!! No one said they were going to live in them dear. They were going to buy and hold while the liberals inflated the currency. Still over your head????

 

[Bfgrn]

The TRUTH is speculators WERE NEVER, EVER going to live in the houses they were buying.

too stupid as per usual!! No one said they were going to live in them dear. They were going to buy and hold while the liberals inflated the currency. Still over your head????

No one inflated the currency. The housing

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

dear, you have learned 16 times now that Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages!! Are you playing stupid for the fun of it? Read "Reckless Endangerment" if you want 400 pages on that exact subject.

If "Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages", WHY did their marketshare PLUMMET?

 

[Dot Com]

dear, Fed Fanny Freddie created money as a matter of policy to stimulate economy and help poor so millions could buy and bid up prices of houses. ThE bubble was 100% impossible without them.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is another conclusion possible?

Their loans defaulted at waaay lower rate than those initiated by private lenders dummy

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Dot Com]

^ @EdwardBaiamonte

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, Fed Fanny Freddie created money as a matter of policy to stimulate economy and help poor so millions could buy and bid up prices of houses. ThE bubble was 100% impossible without them.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Is another conclusion possible?

Their loans defaulted at waaay lower rate than those initiated by private lenders dummy

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

dear you've learned 12 times that Fan Fred took all the good loans forcing private companies to take the bad ones. Now you have learned for the 13th time why private loans failed more. What to go for 14?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If "Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages", WHY did their marketshare PLUMMET?

dear, on your chart Fannie Freddie plummet until 2005 then rocket up till 2009. Do you have any idea what you're talking about, goofy liberal??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The TRUTH is speculators WERE NEVER, EVER going to live in the houses they were buying.

too stupid as per usual!! No one said they were going to live in them dear. They were going to buy and hold while the liberals inflated the currency. Still over your head????

No one inflated the currency. The housing

no one?? Then it was an act of God? See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[Bfgrn]

If "Fanny Freddie caused this to happen by taking all the good mortgages", WHY did their marketshare PLUMMET?

dear, on your chart Fannie Freddie plummet until 2005 then rocket up till 2009. Do you have any idea what you're talking about, goofy liberal??

IRRELEVANT...Timing is everything...the damage was already done by Wall Street bankster and PRIVATE lenders outside of government regulations.

AND what really sucks for you...Fannie and Freddie's serious delinquency rates were MUCH lower than your beloved Wall Street bankster gimmick loans.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, on your chart Fannie Freddie plummet until 2005 then rocket up till 2009. Do you have any idea what you're talking about, goofy liberal??

IRRELEVANT..[/QUOTE]

dear, you said they plummeted, then I said they dove based on your own chart, and you then said it was irrelevant!!

See why we say slow?